Points of View The Current State of Japanese Academia from the Perspective of Research Power

Printable PDF

Minoru Ito, Senior Researcher, Pharmaceutical Industry Policy Institute
Yosuke Takahashi, Senior Researcher, Pharmaceutical Industry Policy Institute
Houdai Okada, Senior Researcher, Pharmaceutical Industry Policy Institute
Kiyoshi Morimoto, Senior Researcher, Pharmaceutical Industry Policy Institute
Shinji Tsubakihara, Senior Researcher, Pharmaceutical Industry Policy Institute

SUMMARY

1. Introduction

The National Institute of Biomedical Innovation Policy (NIBIO) is experimenting with a new approach in which teams of researchers work together to examine a single theme, and our team is conducting research on the theme of "The Reality and Challenges of Japan's Drug Discovery Research Capability. As indicated at the May 25, 2023 press ^conference2), the drug discovery landscape is shifting from an individual-company complete system to a drug discovery ecosystem where multiple players collaborate, and in any case, academia is important as a starting point. In any case, academia plays an important role as a starting point, and it was deemed appropriate to first engage in research and surveys. Although the survey/research is still in progress, this report summarizes the current status of academia as we have identified it at this point.

2. current status of the number of papers

When quantifying and comparing research capabilities, one method is to look at changes in the number of papers, which is the output of research and development. Figure 2 shows the number of papers in all fields in major countries using the fractional count ^method3). To facilitate understanding of the changes in Japan, a graph excluding the U.S. and China is also shown at the same time. The fractional count method is a method in which the number of international coauthored papers is proportionally distributed to each country involved, and is an indication of the contribution to the production of papers. When looking at research strength, it is desirable to look at both quantitative and qualitative perspectives. It is common to use the number of all papers as the quantitative perspective, and the number of papers that are cited more frequently by other papers (Top10% corrected papers, Top1% corrected papers) (hereafter Top10 number and Top1 number) as the qualitative perspective.

As can be seen from the graphs, China's growth in the number of all papers, Top10, and Top1% has been remarkable since the late 1990s, and the number of all papers, Top10, and Top1 surpassed the U.S. to become No. 1 in the world in 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively. Japan's number of all papers showed growth exceeding that of major European countries from the 1980s to the 1990s, and at one time it was ranked second in the world after the U.S. However, a stagnant trend was seen from the 2000s, and the number of Top 10 and Top 1 was next to the U.S. and the U.K. in the 1980s and 1990s. In the late 2000s, it was overtaken by France, and in the 2020s by South Korea, and currently ranks 7th among major countries. Figure 3 shows the time-series ranking of the number of papers, Top 10, and Top 1 in major ^countries4). Although the behaviors of the number of sources, Top 10, and Top 1 differ slightly, we can confirm that Japan's research power in terms of both quantitative and qualitative aspects has been in a stagnant to declining trend since the 2000s.

These figures for the number of papers, Top 10, and Top 1 are for Japan as a whole, including public institutions, companies, and non-profit organizations other than universities. The share of the university sector remained stable at around 70% (78-69%) ⁴⁾, indicating that the university sector played an important role in the production of papers. The problem of Japan's research strength in terms of the number of papers could be regarded as mainly a problem of academia, such as universities.

We continued to check the number of papers in the fields of clinical medicine and basic life sciences, which are considered to be particularly relevant to drug discovery research. The results are shown in Figures 4 and 5. To make it easier to understand the changes in Japan, a graph excluding the U.S. and China is also shown. It should be noted that due to data limitations, these figures are for Japan as a whole.

In the field of clinical medicine, the U.S. remains No. 1 in the world, although China has shown remarkable growth in recent years in terms of the total number of papers, which is a quantitative measure. On the other hand, in terms of the number of Top 10 and Top 1 papers, which are considered from a qualitative perspective, the U.S. still holds the top position. 2021 saw the U.S. with approximately 2.2 times the number of Top 10 papers (12,350 vs. 5,633) and 4.1 times the number of Top 1 papers (1,498 vs. 364), a large difference from China. Japan's number of Top 1 papers grew rapidly in the 1980s and 1990s, temporarily stagnated in the 2000s, and then showed a growth trend again in the 2010s and beyond. On the other hand, the number of Top 10 countries showed a temporary stagnation in the early 2000s, but maintained an increasing trend during the rest of the decade. However, the gap with the U.S. and China, as well as the U.K. and Germany, is widening, and the gap with South Korea is narrowing. Currently, it is competing with South Korea for seventh place. As described above, Japan's research strength in terms of the number of papers in the field of clinical medicine seemed to be a challenge to improve in terms of quality (Top 10 and Top 1 numbers) while maintaining an increasing trend in terms of quantity (total number of papers).

In the field of basic life sciences, China has made remarkable progress in terms of quantity (total number of papers), surpassing the U.S. to become the world's No. 1 in 2020. In terms of quality, China overtook the U.S., which has been stagnant since the late 2010s, to become the world's No. 1 in 2020, while the U.S., which has been stagnant since the late 2010s, maintained its No. 1 position in the number of Top 1 papers, but China is rapidly catching up. If this trend continues, the situation is expected to reverse in recent years. Looking over the situation in Japan, the number of total papers showed rapid growth in the 1980s and 1990s, temporarily occupying the second place in the world, but showed a stagnant to declining trend after the 2000s, and then showed a growth trend again in the 2020s. Currently, it is competing with Germany for the third place position after the U.S. and China. The Top 10, on the other hand, showed an increasing trend in the 1980s and 1990s, but stagnated after the 2000s, and the gap with the U.K. and Germany widened, The number of Top 1s has been on a downward trend since the 2010s, and the gap with the U.K. and Germany is widening. Currently, it is competing with Korea for the 7th place. As described above, Japan's research strength in the field of basic life sciences in terms of the number of papers is expected to maintain an upward trend in terms of quantity (total number of papers) from the 2020s onward, while improving in terms of quality (Top 10 and Top 1), as in the field of clinical medicine.

3) Constraints on research performance in academia

As we have seen in the previous chapter, we can broadly conclude that the general tide of Japanese research power in terms of the number of papers has turned since the 2000s. Then, how do the academia themselves feel the constraints in improving their research performance? The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) conducts a "Survey on Full-Time Equivalent Data at Universities, etc. " ⁵⁾ about once every five years. The survey is conducted to obtain coefficients for adjusting the number of researchers at universities to internationally comparable full-time equivalent data (full-time equivalent coefficients: FTE coefficients). The survey categorizes the factors in which faculty members feel constrained in improving their research performance into four categories: research personnel, research hours, research environment, and research funding, and surveys the degree to which they feel constrained in each category on a 5-point ^scale6). The most recent survey was conducted in FY2018 and the results were released in June 2019. The total number of total clients was 5,367. The results are shown in Figure 6. The most common response was "research time" at 76.4%, followed by "research funding" at 56.1%, "research personnel" at 48.7%, and "research environment" at 40.5%.

Looking at the details of the responses in the order in which they were received, the largest number of faculty members felt that "university administrative work" (participation in faculty meetings and other internal meetings and related work) was a constraint on their "research time," followed by "excessive teaching load. In "Research funding," the most common response was "Insufficient basic expenses," followed by "Difficulty in obtaining external research funds such as competitive grants. In terms of "research human resources," the most common response was "Insufficient master's and doctoral students," followed by "Insufficient young researchers (post-doctoral fellows). In terms of "research environment," the largest number of faculty members felt that "lack of research assistants and technicians to use and maintain research equipment and samples" was a constraint, followed by "availability of research equipment such as experimental equipment and large computers.

From the above, it was confirmed that academia firstly feels constraints in "research time" to improve research performance, and in "research personnel," they feel constraints in "human resources," such as a shortage of master's and doctoral students and young researchers. Furthermore, the respondents also felt that they were restricted in terms of "money," such as basic expenses and external research funds. In addition, they wanted research assistants and research equipment as part of the "research environment," but this could be interpreted as an indirect "human" and "financial" issue. Therefore, we proceeded to investigate the current status of "people" and "money" in Japanese academia.

4. current status of research hours and human resources in academia

As will be explained later, the limitation of "research time" is directly related to the number of researchers, which is deeply related to "human resources. First, we checked the number of researchers in the university sector in major countries. Figure 7 cites the results of the "Science and Technology Indicators 2023" published by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), which shows that the number of researchers in China has increased noticeably since the 2000s, and that all major countries except the U.S. have shown an increasing trend over the years. What is odd is that there are three types of data (old standard, HC, and FTE) for Japan, and their behavior is different: the old standard before 2001 indicates the total number of faculty members, postdoctoral fellows, medical staff, and other researchers; HC after 2002 means Head Count, which is the number of researchers who are concurrently working in the same department. FTE after 2002 means Full Time Equivalent, which is the number of researchers who have actually dedicated their time to research work, and is calculated by multiplying the number of researchers in the old standard by the FTE coefficient. As already mentioned, the FTE coefficient (Full Time Equivalent) is obtained from the "Survey on Full Time Equivalent Data at Universities, etc. " ⁵⁾ conducted by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). Note that the number of FTE researchers is an internationally comparable value. In other words, the number of university sector researchers in Japan since the 2000s has consistently increased in terms of the number of HC researchers, while the number of FTE researchers, which is internationally comparable, has shown a flat to slowly decreasing trend. Figure 8 shows the change in the ratio of time spent on professional ^{activities5) of} university faculty members, and it was assumed that the decrease in the ratio of time allocated to research activities was the cause of this trend.

We continued our survey on the current status of the number of researchers in Japan by academic discipline. Table 1 shows the results. In the fields of science, engineering, and agriculture, there was no significant change in the number of both FTE and HC researchers. However, in the health field, which is assumed to be more closely related to drug discovery research capabilities, the number of HC researchers increased significantly (from 48,058 in 2002 to 65,585 in 2018), while the number of FTE researchers decreased (from 22,237 in 2002 to 19,519 in 2018). The change in the percentage of time spent on professional activities of university faculty in the health field is shown in Figure 9, and it was assumed that this was due to the decrease in the percentage of time spent on research activities and the increase in the percentage of time spent mainly on social service activities (other: medical practice activities, etc.). Although it is desirable to secure "research time" to improve the research performance of academia, the current decrease in the proportion of time spent on research activities is offset by the increase in personnel, and this is a problem that should not be underestimated.

In the area of "research human resources," many in academia felt constrained by the "human" aspect, such as the lack of master's and doctoral students and young researchers, but it was pointed out that the number of young researchers has a significant relationship to excellent research activities. The National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (now the National Institute of Science and Technology Policy) has surveyed the characteristics of research activities that have produced excellent ^results8) and presented a profile of top ^{researchers9)}. According to the survey, more than 70% of the top researchers belonged to universities, and the average age was 39.9 years old, with more than half of them under 40 years old. The survey also points out the importance of overseas experience in fostering excellent researchers, as 27% of the respondents had post-doctoral experience and 37% had overseas work experience, and the majority of the former group had overseas post-doctoral experience.

Figure 10 shows the number and composition of full-time university faculty members by age group. It should be noted that these figures are the result of the School Teachers' Statistical ^Survey10) and represent the number of full-time faculty members. As can be seen from the list, the number of faculty members aged 40 and above has been increasing over time, while the number of young faculty members under 40 has been leveling off in the mid-40,000s since the 1980s, and has been on a declining trend since the 2010s. In terms of composition, the percentage of young faculty under 40 has consistently declined, falling from 48.1% in 1971 to less than half of the total to 22.1% in 2019.

Continuing the trend, Figure 11 shows the number and composition of full-time university faculty by age group in the health field, which is assumed to be more closely related to drug discovery research capabilities: while the number of faculty over 40 years old has increased almost over time, the number of young faculty under 40 years old increased more than that of other age groups until the mid-1980s, but since then it The number of teachers under the age of 20,000 showed a leveling off trend at around 20,000. In terms of composition, the percentage of young faculty members under the age of 40 remained flat until the mid-1980s, but since then the percentage has decreased over time, falling from 64.4% in 1971 to less than half, 30.1%, in 2019.

As described above, the number of researchers in academia in Japan (the number of HC researchers) was increasing. However, because the percentage of time dedicated to research activities has decreased over time, the number of internationally comparable FTE researchers in Japan has shown a flat to slowly decreasing trend, while the number of FTE researchers in other major countries (excluding the U.S.) has been on the increase. Furthermore, in terms of the age structure of researchers, the percentage of young researchers under the age of 40, which used to account for more than half of the top researchers, has decreased to less than half since the beginning of the 1970s. It was confirmed that the current status of "human resources" in Japanese academia is problematic both in terms of research time and research personnel.

In the profiles of top researchers, it was also pointed out that overseas experience is important for the development of excellent researchers. Figure 12 shows the number of researchers dispatched overseas in Japan. As can be understood from the list, the total number of researchers sent abroad was on an increasing trend until the COVID-19 pandemic (2019). However, the number of mid- to long-term researchers sent abroad for more than 30 days showed a downward trend after 2000, and has remained almost flat in the low 4,000s since the late 2000s. The fact that overseas experience, which is important for fostering excellent researchers, has become limited could be interpreted as a further problem with the current state of "human resources" in Japanese academia.

5. current status of research funding in academia 6. current status of research funding in academia in Japan

We proceeded to investigate research funding as the current status of "money" in Japanese academia. First, the trends of university sector R&D expenditures (nominal OECD purchasing power parity equivalent) in major countries are shown in Figure 1312 ⁾. As a result, we confirmed that the U.S. is ranked first in the world in terms of both amount and growth. China (data missing since 2019) was assumed to be in second place and Germany in third. Japan was assumed to occupy fourth place, along with the United Kingdom (data missing for 2021). However, while R&D expenditures in other major countries have been growing over time, Japan's reached a record high in 1998 and then remained mostly flat since the 2000s. Japan's R&D spending growth rate of 102% over the past decade (2011 vs. 2021) is inferior to other major countries (US 133%, China ¹³⁾ 250%, Germany 156%, France 132%, and Korea 177%), suggesting that the situation is worrisome from the perspective of international competition.

In order to confirm the situation in the health sector, which is assumed to be more closely related to drug discovery research capabilities, we continued our investigation of trends in university sector R&D expenditures and composition ratios by academic discipline in Japan. The results are shown in Figure 14. It should be noted that these figures do not adjust for faculty personnel costs by FTE coefficients. Therefore, the share of the health sector has also expanded over time, from 25.1% in 1981 to 34.3% in 2021.

In the previous chapter, we mentioned that the National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP) ⁸⁾ had conducted a survey on the characteristics of research activities that have produced excellent results, and also analyzed research funding. According to the analysis, the median and mode of the research funds used to calculate the Top10%-corrected papers were 4.9 million yen and 1 million yen, respectively, indicating that many studies were conducted with relatively small amounts of research funds. In addition, 46.5% of the Top10%-corrected papers were the results of research using Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI), indicating that the relatively small amount of KAKENHI plays an important role. However, it was also pointed out that statistical analysis strongly indicated that Top 1%-corrected papers with particularly high citations tended to be produced from high research funds (20 million yen or more). In a similar study, the University of Tsukuba and Hirosaki University investigated the relationship between research funding and research results in the life science and medical ^fields14). The results showed that, for researchers, the higher the amount of research funding received, the more research results could be produced, but that research results production reached a plateau at 50 million yen or more, and that, as for the efficiency of research results production relative to the total investment amount, small research funding of 5 million yen or less allocated to a large number of researchers was more efficient than high research funding allocated to a small number of researchers. The results also showed that the allocation of small research funds of less than 5 million yen to a large number of researchers produced more research results than the allocation of high research funds to a small number of researchers.

In Chapter 2, we mentioned that it is desirable to focus on both quantitative and qualitative aspects of Japan's research strength in terms of the number of research papers. If more emphasis is placed on the quantitative perspective, it would be desirable to widely distribute relatively small amounts of research funds of about 5 million yen. On the other hand, if more emphasis is placed on the qualitative perspective, it is desirable to allocate a certain amount of research funds (20-50 million yen). While ensuring that the amount and growth rate of research funds are not inferior to international competition, it was considered desirable to strategically consider the allocation of such funds from qualitative and quantitative perspectives.

Summary of Research Capability of Academia in Japan

In quantifying and comparing the research strength of Japanese academia, we looked at the current situation by focusing on changes in the number of papers, which is the output of R&D. We confirmed that it is important to clearly distinguish and be aware of two perspectives when looking at the number of papers: quantitative (total number of papers) and qualitative (number of Top 10 and Top 1 revised papers). The results of the survey confirmed that it is important to clearly distinguish and be aware of the two perspectives: quantitative (number of all papers) and qualitative (number of Top 10 and Top 1 corrected papers). In addition, when looking at "human resources," which is thought to have an impact on Japan's research strength, it is important to distinguish between the number of FTE researchers and the number of HC researchers, which is the number of people, by considering the ratio of time dedicated to research work, rather than simply looking at the number of researchers. Furthermore, when looking at "money," it is important to distinguish and be aware that R&D expenditures include OECD estimates in which faculty personnel costs are corrected by the FTE coefficient (full-time equivalent (FTE) coefficient) and R&D expenditures in which faculty personnel costs are fully accounted for.

(1) Number of papers

When looking at the number of papers in Japan with these perspectives in mind, the number of total papers grew faster than that of major European countries in the 1980s and 1990s, and for a while Japan was ranked second in the world after the U.S. However, a stagnant trend was seen after the 2000s, and the number of Top 10 and Top 1 papers showed an increasing trend again after the late 2010s. In the 1980s and 1990s, Japan competed with Germany after the U.S. and the U.K., but the gap between Japan and Germany stagnated after the 2000s, and the gap between Japan and Germany widened.

The number of all Japanese papers in the field of clinical medicine showed rapid growth in the 1980s and 1990s, then temporarily stagnated in the 2000s, and showed a trend of growth again in the 2010s and beyond. On the other hand, the number of Top 10 papers has maintained a gradual increase except for a temporary slowdown in the early 2000s, but the gap with the U.K. and Germany has widened, while the gap with South Korea has narrowed. After the 2020s, the number of Top 1s showed a declining trend, and Japan was competing with South Korea for the seventh place.

The number of Japanese papers in the field of basic life sciences showed rapid growth in the 1980s and 1990s and was ranked second in the world for a while, but after stagnating and then declining in the 2000s, it showed a trend of growth again in the 2020s and is currently competing with Germany for third place. On the other hand, the number of Top 10 and Top 1 papers both showed an increasing trend in the 1980s and 1990s, but stagnated after the 2000s, and the gap with the U.K. and Germany widened.

Japan's research strength in terms of the number of papers showed a rapid growth in the 1980s and 1990s, followed by a stagnant trend in the 2000s, while maintaining an increasing trend in terms of quantity (total number of papers) since the 2010s and 2020s, the gap with other major countries has widened, and Japan has been catching up with South Korea in terms of quality (Top 10 and Top 1 papers). The improvement of the quality perspective (number of Top 10 and Top 1 papers), which has been catching up with South Korea, seemed particularly important.

(2) Research time and human resources

The number of university sector researchers in Japan since the 2000s has consistently increased in number (the number of HC researchers), but the number of internationally comparable FTE researchers has shown a flat or gradual downward trend since the late 2000s. A decrease in the percentage of time devoted to research activities (46.5% in 2002 to 32.9% in 2018) was assumed to be responsible for this. Especially in the health sector, which is assumed to be more closely related to drug discovery research capabilities, the number of HC researchers increased significantly (from 48,058 in 2002 to 65,585 in 2018), while the number of FTE researchers decreased (from 22,237 in 2002 to 19,519 in 2018). The decrease in the percentage of time was 46.0% in 2002 to 29.8% in 2018.

The number of full-time university faculty members by age group shows that the number of faculty members over 40 years old has increased over time, while the number of young faculty members under 40 years old, which was estimated to account for more than half of the top researchers, has leveled off at around 45,000 since the 1980s and has shown a downward trend since the 2010s. young faculty members under 40 years old. The percentage of young people under 40 years old had decreased from 48.1% in 1971 to 22.1% in 2019, less than half of the total.

In the health field, the number of faculty members over 40 years old has been increasing almost continuously, while the number of young faculty members under 40 years old increased faster than other age groups until the mid-1980s, but since then, the number of young faculty members under 40 years old has leveled off at around 20,000. Since then, however, it has been decreasing over time, falling from 64.4% in 1971 to 30.1% in 2019, less than half of the total number of young researchers.

In addition, although overseas experience is important for the development of excellent researchers, the number of researchers dispatched abroad for medium- to long-term stays of more than 30 days showed a downward trend after 2000, and has remained almost flat in the low 4,000s since the latter half of the 2000s.

It was confirmed that the current status of "human resources" in Japanese academia is problematic in terms of research time, research personnel (age groups), and international exchange. Although the hurdle to immediately increasing the actual number of young researchers and the number of mid- to long-term researchers dispatched abroad may be high, there may be room for improvement in the ratio of time allocated to research activities.

(3) Research funding

In terms of university sector R&D expenditures (nominal amount in OECD purchasing power parity terms) in major countries, the United States jumped out of the pack, ranking first in the world, including in terms of growth. China was assumed to be second and Germany third. Japan was assumed to occupy fourth place, along with the United Kingdom. However, while R&D expenditures in other major countries grew over time, Japan's reached a record high in 1998 and then remained mostly flat since the 2000s. Japan's R&D expenditure growth rate of 102% over the past decade (2011 vs. 2021) was inferior to that of other major countries (US 133%, China ¹³⁾ 250%, Germany 156%, France 132%, and Korea 177%), suggesting that the situation is not a relief in terms of international competition. In addition, when looking at trends in R&D expenditures and composition ratios in the university sector by academic field in Japan, R&D expenditures were on an increasing trend in almost all fields until the late 1990s, but only in the health field have they continued to increase since the 2000s. Therefore, the share of the health sector has expanded over time, from 25.1% in 1981 to 34.3% in 2021.

Furthermore, it was pointed out that if the emphasis is on the quantitative aspect of Japan's research power in terms of the number of papers, it is desirable to allocate a wide range of relatively small research funds of around 5 million yen, while if the emphasis is on the qualitative aspect, it is desirable to allocate research funds of a certain amount (20 to 50 million yen).

The current status of "money" in Japanese academia is such that it is desirable to ensure that the amount and growth rate of research funds do not fall behind international competition, while at the same time strategically considering the allocation of such funds from both quantitative and qualitative perspectives.

(4) Discussion

This paper is the result of a survey and research conducted by a team from the National Institute of Biomedical Innovation Policy on the theme of "The Actual State and Challenges of Japan's Drug Discovery Research Capability". The survey and research are still in progress and will be continued in the future, but a broad overview of the current state of Japanese academia suggests that the tide has turned in several areas since the 2000s, including research power in terms of the number of papers, research hours, research personnel, international exchange, and research funding. The tide has turned in several areas.

In addition to supplying seeds, Japanese academia also plays an important role in human resource development, supplying society with excellent human resources who have mastered advanced technologies. However, human resource development is outside the scope of this paper. The results of human resource development in academia in Japan need to be examined separately.

Conclusion

The state of drug discovery in Japan seems to be shifting from a traditional individual-company complete system to a drug discovery ecosystem in which multiple players collaborate, and in any case, academia is expected to play an important role as a starting point. The importance of collaboration between the pharmaceutical industry and academia is undisputed, but this point is also not addressed in this paper. Further investigation and research are needed. Further research and surveys are also needed on the current status of drug discovery start-ups, which are new players, and their collaboration (both in terms of collaboration with academia and with the pharmaceutical industry).

If we consider only the perspective of extending the healthy life expectancy of the Japanese people through innovative drug discovery, it is possible that the Japanese pharmaceutical industry, which is exposed to global competition, does not necessarily need to rely on Japanese academia, and that global industry-academia collaboration is the way to go. In a study by Nagaoka and Nishimura et al. ¹⁵⁾ published in this issue of Policy Research Institute News (No.71), it is pointed out that approximately 90% of the scientific papers on which the Japanese pharmaceutical industry relies are foreign papers, and that the ability to absorb global developments in science is important. At the same time, however, it is also pointed out that the utilization of domestic science has its advantages and that it is important to take advantage of these advantages. In order to take advantage of this advantage of homegrown inventors, it is important for Japan's pharmaceutical industry to contribute as much as possible to improving the research capabilities of Japanese academia.

Furthermore, the Japanese pharmaceutical industry is also expected to play a role in contributing to Japan's economic growth. Considering Japan's economic growth, improving the research capabilities of Japanese academia is important not only for Japan's pharmaceutical industry, but also for other industries and social development. It is important for Japan's pharmaceutical industry to make all possible contributions to academia and grow hand in hand with them, not only to improve Japan's drug discovery capabilities, but also to improve the country's national strength and social development.

Return to News List

TOP